Affirmative Action

Unless you are talking about getting into a Law school, than only certain races are allowed to sue for discrimination, a policy which is in and of itself racist and discrimintatory.

 

This isn't true. Several times, white people have successfully sued for reverse discrimination. For example:
http://www.adversity.net/c32_jessica_haak.htm

It's important to note that what I advocate is not what we see today as Affirmative Action. I detest quotas. However, as originally intended, Affirmative Action can be such a tool for good in the country in which we live in, as it strives for racial equality across the board.

 

That's simply untrue. Discrimination cases where whites and where men are the plaitiffs do occur, and, when there is merit, they do win.

Take a case in point several years ago when a single white male took his female child to a Target to buy clothes. He was forbidden access into the girl's chnaing room. When he took her to the boy's changin room, there were several mothers with their sons. He sued, and won. The cause of action was discrimination based on gender.

Another case in point where a white college female was turned down for a job at a Mexican eatery. She also sued and won.

 

Please prove a direct association between whites who will be discriminated against and the exploitation of the blacks who will be favored by that discrimination. If you can't then you have no foundation for your claim.

As whites live in a system which has blood on it's hands, whites share the burden of rectifying the injustices of the past, which make up the present.</font>[/QUOTE] Out of all of the ridiculous things I have seen you post this may be the worst.

Someone who has never mistreated a black person and in fact has been careful to be fair to all people regardless of their race has no blood on their hands. "A system" can't have blood on its hands... only an individual can have blood on their hands and like it or not almost all of those people are dead. If you rectify "the injustices" of the past by being unjust against people who hand nothing to do with it then you haven't rectified anything. You have simply performed another injustice.

But, if you are going to "rectify" the balance sheet then the "injustices" need to be weighted against the benefits. Such as: If American blacks were a separate country, they would be the 10th most wealthy nation on the face of the earth. What are the conditions in the countries from which black slaves were taken? Do any of them qualify as one of the top ten wealthiest nations in the world? I don't think so.

In the cases where this is true, we as a people, not government, should punish the responsible parties by boycott, protest, etc.

No. Apparently it is on you though.

Cause: Whites once systematically denied blacks their God given rights.

Effect: Blacks at that time suffered and were denied the ability to lift themselves out of oppression. Laws were created to ensure the rights of blacks.

At no point was I involved in denying rights to black people. There is no justification for punishing me for the misdeeds of others.

Perhaps because they are impovershed due to exploitation by whites?</font>[/QUOTE] Give it a break...

Blacks come here from other countries and succeed. In fact, people of every color come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back with no government support and succeed. It has been the American way since 1620. People bring their meager goods and their hope and achieve great things.

Exploitation was a reason for the suppression of the exploited. Blacks are not exploited today in any systematic way... any more than any other group or individual might be.... That is unless you want to count the exploitation done by liberal politicians who want to keep them down by perpetuating an dependent/victim attitude.

I want to see blacks successful. In fact, I would go out of my way to trade with a black owned business. But they have to stand up and do it like everyone else... earn it. They have the freedom to do it now and that is all that is really important.

My experience is of course anecdotal but it is significant since I have dealt with literally hundreds perhaps thousands of businesses. In my time, I have never run across a small business owned by a black person in printing or a print support industry- many other races but not blacks. At the same time, I have known several black people working in printing that had all the necessary skills to run their own business.

The only way the playing field can ever truly be leveled is if blacks start to own businesses and property in the same proportions as other races.

Race should never be a consideration either way.

Interesting hearing this from the mouth of a follower of the Lord. Methinks you need to look into your heart some more and examine why you focus on owning things so much... and push away others in need.</font>[/QUOTE] Methinks you need to get over your self righteous attitude and stop reading your naive bias into the thoughts of others.

We are talking about material wealth. Not spiritual wealth. Take the comments in context and stop trying to turn your socialistic ideas into some kind of morality.

Methinks you need to look into your own heart and see if there isn't a good bit of envy and coveteousness.

A business owner can do whatever they want with their wealth. Give it all away as far as I am concerned. But if blacks are ever going to garner the status of "equal" in our society, it won't be because of government force. It will be because they merit the respect of those they come in contact with. In this key respect, AA has done far more harm than good.

Because those guilty of those wrongs are dead.

Why have you so much faith in the material, and not in the Lord's compassion? </font>[/QUOTE]I am not confused about the difference between the Lord's compassion and the force of government.

Again, you try to pluck this out of context so you can sound Oh so holy. However, your idea of "compassion" is not compassion. Compassion is an act of good will between individuals... not a mandate from government to force the unwilling to make concessions to the unthankful.

 

Using Christianity in this manner is the reason, IMNSHO, that so many non-believers claim that Christianity is just (to quote an apparent hero of the socialists) "an opiate for the masses".

When all logic fails, bring out the "you can't be a Christian with that attitude" retorts!!

 

Using Christianity in this manner is the reason, IMNSHO, that so many non-believers claim that Christianity is just (to quote an apparent hero of the socialists) "an opiate for the masses".

When all logic fails, bring out the "you can't be a Christian with that attitude" retorts!! </font>[/QUOTE]I do wonder, though, about the sentiment. Is it a Christian idea to believe that property and business owndership are the keys to success, freedom, wealth, and control, all of which ScottJ is asserting?

Or are success and freedom in Scripture defined much differently?

 

It's simple. The Eighth Commandment says "Thou shalt not steal".

Violating property rights, or advocating the same, is a sin against God.

To assert that adherence to the Ten Commandments makes someone a bad Christian is a little backwards, don't you think?

 

Two points here:

1) My reading of ScottJ's intent is that this is just the normal;, routine, everyday method of rising in society in todays enviornment; not a replacement for spiritual needs! In fact, totally non-related to nor insulsted from, Christianity.
In other words, with some business sense, ambition, and good customer service, most anyone, Christian or not, CAN be a successful (by worldly standards) person.

2) Yes, some Christians tend to equate $ & status etc. with success over and above that that is prescribed by God; sad, but true

 

In a material sense...

You can further find support for my contentions in some of Jesus' parables. God is compared to a rich man and a husbandman who pays his workers in a way they think is unfair.

Yes and no. Solomon was very rich... Lazarus was not.

Since you imply that I am wrong about material wealth vis a vis morality then why do you contend that government must level the playing field and redistribute wealth in a way that you find equitable? Why instead aren't you contending that our government has a vested interest in distributing spiritual wealth?

 

Thanks JWP. You explained my point well.

 

Interestingly enough, he paid all of his workers the same amount, even though they worked different hours. How does this support your idea?

Yes and no. Solomon was very rich... Lazarus was not.</font>[/QUOTE]And how is Solomon ultimately remembered? That's not success to me - Lazarus was ultimately successful though, was he not?

I didn't say that it is immoral to have things. I just said that I don't believe that money is the key to success and freedom. I'm not advocating socialism, and again, you're making a straw argument against me. I'm not advocating quotas and I never have, but I believe that we as a nation should train the "least of these" and enable them to find gainful employment so that they can provide for and support their families. I cannot see how doing what we can to eliminate poverty in this nation can be considered wrong. What is wrong is the failure to try.

 

That's a bizarre little jump, isn't it? Who here is advocating the violation of property rights? It certainly isn't me.

On the contrary, I believe that we should ultimately allow that all of our possessions be used by God, that we should give to the "least of these" as often as possible. I don't have a lot of money, but everything that I do have belongs to God first and foremost. My understanding of success and freedom comes not in what I have but in what I can give. That's where true freedom occurs, and when looking at the early church, it is clear that they believed so as well.

 

Money is not the key to success. Most often it is discipline which few have. Many do not have money because they are not disciplined and unwilling to sacrifice living on less.

Year after year we have people coming from various parts of the world coming to study and others to work. Isn't it amazing how many come for a chance to better themselves while others who already know the language and are citizens complain because those who are motivated are getting the jobs.

 

That's a bizarre little jump, isn't it? Who here is advocating the violation of property rights? It certainly isn't me.

On the contrary, I believe that we should ultimately allow that all of our possessions be used by God, that we should give to the "least of these" as often as possible. I don't have a lot of money, but everything that I do have belongs to God first and foremost. My understanding of success and freedom comes not in what I have but in what I can give. That's where true freedom occurs, and when looking at the early church, it is clear that they believed so as well. </font>[/QUOTE]It's not a bizarre jump at all.

You are right that all you have ultimately belongs to God. That's why it's wrong for the government to confiscate it and give it to someone else.

 

How are giving minorities the opportunities for training, opening the prospective job pool up to minorities, and recruiting minorities for application at educational and employment institutions a confiscation?

 

Money is not the key to success. Most often it is discipline which few have. Many do not have money because they are not disciplined and unwilling to sacrifice living on less.
</font>[/QUOTE]Excellent point.

 

It isn't wrong. There are things that can and should be done- primarily by private people but possibly a few things by government as well.

But the ends NEVER justify the means. If a remedy for one person whose rights have been infringed upon involves violating the rights of someone who had nothing directly to do with it then the remedy itself is unjust and immoral.

It is not wrong to "fail to try" if the only options are to do nothing or to do something else that is no less wrong than the first transgression. Two wrongs really don't make a right.

 

It isn't wrong. There are things that can and should be done- primarily by private people but possibly a few things by government as well.

But the ends NEVER justify the means. If a remedy for one person whose rights have been infringed upon involves violating the rights of someone who had nothing directly to do with it then the remedy itself is unjust and immoral.

It is not wrong to "fail to try" if the only options are to do nothing or to do something else that is no less wrong than the first transgression. Two wrongs really don't make a right. </font>[/QUOTE]How are giving minorities the opportunities for training, opening the prospective job pool up to minorities, and recruiting minorities for application at educational and employment institutions a way of infringing upon another's rights?

 

Setting policies based on a persons' skin color is racism. Too bad that we had a good start at finishing it off, but have now mandated it by government decree.

 

Who says whites will be discriminated against, and who says there will be favoring, rather than greater parity in response to already endemic racism? We're speaking friom different conventions here, methinks.

On the contrary, if your affluence and position in society is based upon past discrimination and exploitation, you are in possession of stolen goods, and though the blood may be old, it's still there.

This is a fundemental difference between our conventions; you think in terms of seperation and temporal distiction, while I look at relationships and causality. Whites that have exploited blacks (and Native Americans, Asians, etc.) in the past passed on those benefits to their offpring and the offspring of other whites who benefitted from the free labor and land which have made this country wealthy... ofr those who are 'in' the system, mainly whites.

That you cannot see these connection is a tragedy of epic proportions.

Not at all... I simply wish to return the stolen goods that we have inherited.

That is because of the exploitation of the Slave trade, colonialization, the Cold War, Globalism etc. Do not lay the blame of their poverty on them... it was and is the Western world that committed those atrocities, and who knows how far they would have gone without our genocidal interferance?

I can't believe you would look at a black person and tell them how 'lucky' they are that their ancestors were put in chains! Shame on you!

The government is the arm of the people... punishment is what we give them the right to do on our behalf as a society.

"Lift themselves out"? Sounds like conservative dogma, methinks. Keep in mind that this suffering was inflicted upon blacks for hundreds of years... that has an impact that cannot be erased with a wave of a hand!

You inherited the stolen goods, you have the responsibility of giving them back.

What? Informing you of your social responsibility as God has called me to do? No sir, I will not.

That does not mean that they will in our society, one in which makes sure that the poor stay poor, and the rich stay rich. Horacio Alger lied.

Or perhaps buisness leaders and their conservative allies who wish to take away public assistance in order to force poor black to work for next to nothing, force them to live without adiquate shelter, food, education, or health care... and without hope, as their labors are exploited for the benefit of the wealthy.

Liberals see these exploitations as immoral, much as Christ did, and thus we do our part to succor.

Oh really? Who 'earns' what in this society, under whose rules? Who says they have those freedoms? Who says they are able to stand up to those who still exploit them?

Why is your negligence more important than providing succor to those in need as the Lord commands?

Have you ever thought that maybe... just maybe that blacks don't won these businesses because of discrimination in access to credit, loans, property, business connections, education, etc...? Why do you rush to blame them for not succeeding in a racist system?

But as it still is, affirmative action will still be necessary.

Naive according to who, you? I'll stick with facts and scripture, thank you. I cannot say I do enough to mollify the needs of others, but at least I try... and not blame and abandon them.

The Word makes it clear how deterimental material obsessions are to one's spiritual condition. My left-leaning heart is in line with the Lord on this mark.

Ahhh... the last retort of the covetous; to accuse those who do not feel as they do of envy.

Sigh.

They merit respect because they are human beings, children of God! It is not our place to hold our prejudices above their heads.

But their spoils are distributed amongst their children. It's time to return what has been taken.

No, I believe you are wrong about your worship of the market; thus far, the market has been responsible for the exploitation... only public activism has been able to counter it, with abolition, labor unions, progressive law, etc. It wasn't the work of the major corporations that helped M.L. King triumph over adversity, it was human compassion and the Lord's strength that did.

Ahhh... here's the crux: if you are so confidant about individual good will, then why are these people 'unwilling' to contribute to the common good through social action? Maybe it's because they are unwilling to do so given any situation... that without being held to their social responsibilties, they would happily abandon those in need, calling them 'unthankful', and basking themselves in some sort of pseudo-rightousness derived from conservative market dogma?

The private sphere has done little to remedy these conditions; churches can only do so much, and conservative thought has tainted Christ's message in many. Those in need require our help, not derision; those responsibilites come before our notions of self-enrichment.